You’re completely missing the point. This is not about how the media may choose to refer to a particular government. It’s about Harper’s edict directing how the government must refer to itself in all official communications. It’s a partisan rebranding of the state itself.
The standard terminology in all official government communications has been “the Government of Canada”, in conformance with the requirements of the Federal Identity Program. Provincial governments have similar policies, specifically to prevent partisanship in government communications. Yet in December of 2010 (IIRC), an edict went out from the Prime Minister’s Office to all departments ordering that henceforth, in all government press communications “the Government of Canada” was to be “the Harper Government™”.
This is not some silly exercise in egotistical neurosis, like Trump plastering his name over everything. It’s a calculated branding of all government communications, and thus the government itself, in Harper’s name.
Harper’s role model here appears to be Louis XIV, who similarly said “l’état, c’est moi” in asserting the divine right of kings. Harper himself was a bit more subtle when he simply said, in a famous comment in 2010, “I make the rules”.
Indeed he does. When first elected in 2006 his original rebranding decree was the somewhat more modest “Canada’s New Government”. When a government scientist refused to obey the decree and transgressed by referring to the government as “the Government of Canada”, the scientist was fired. Apparently, we don’t do executions any more.
And second we can spend more money on improving veterans benefits than advertising how much we ‘appreciate’ their service. How Harper has treated this country’s veterans is beyond shameful in my opinion.
And maybe third, tighten up rules for spending in the senate and house! I find it a little odd all sides are busy decrying the scandal but not a whisper of making the rules tight, iron clad, enforceable and overseen.
Thanks *wolfpup, *for providing the links. I am more convinced now than ever that Harper has to go. Now I am trying to decide which other party to support. I wish Jack were alive.
It would be a very significant point if there was a general re-branding of Canadian government news releases to read “Harper Government” rather than “Government of Canada”.
However, that doesn’t appear to actually be the case. See links in post above.
You might have a point were it not for the fact that what I said was absolutely correct, and you must surely be aware that this has been a major issue since this idiot was first elected.
Let me first of all make the minor point that I looked at your links, and right at this moment there are only three articles on the first page (ordered by date) that make any kind of reference to the federal government (as opposed to some group or department) and the three articles are:
Harper Government Recognizes the National Historic Significance of Saint-Eustache Church
Harper Government creates new jobs for youth in Kenora
Harper Government announces support for youth crime prevention and addiction services in Sydney, Nova Scotia
But be that as it may, the larger point is that the particular “Harper Government” edict to which I refer has been in the media since early 2011. If you do a search there are thousands of press articles and editorial outrage about it. Just look at the picture of that press release in the above-linked article that discusses the whole issue.
Is this practice now becoming less stringent and “Government of Canada” coming back into use in some cases? You wouldn’t know it from the articles I just mentioned, but let me quote noted evangelical nutcase and creationist lunatic Stockwell Day (from the above link), who in 2011 was Harper’s appointee to the Treasury Board:
“If you think you’re on to something that is going to ignite people from coast to coast in a fury of rage, maybe we’ll look at it. But this is the first I’ve heard of it, so good luck with it,” Day told CBC News.
So, hey, maybe they looked at it! And maybe decided to occasionally cut some agencies some slack because the PR scam had backfired on them. If you have any doubt that Harper is a control freak for whom this is absolutely typical then you haven’t been paying attention to his entire pattern of tyrannical media management. As I mentioned earlier, shortly after his election in 2006, Harper fired a senior government scientist for refusing to use what was then his marketing catchphrase, “Canada’s New Government”.
Here’s the problem. The article starts off with “A British Columbia man says he’s been dumped from his role…” It’s a one-sided story with no chance for the “Harper Government” to provide their side of the story. This is typical of the CBC and most media in Canada. The CBC hates Conservative governments because their funding is challenged and even cut. And so it should be. CBC TV sells advertizing like any other station. If they can’t swim, let 'em sink.
What about hearing about “Obamacare” or “The Obama Administration?” Is that worrisome to you? If not, why not.
You’re looking for irrational things to hate this current government, which I honestly believe is the best government we’ve had in a generation.
Your neighbors to the south, for one. In the financialized US economy of the last 30 years, private companies, for all their huge asset portfolios and talk of wealth creation, ended up defunding and defaulting on their pension plans. The US federal government took them over as insurer of last resort, or something.
Capitalism of the Thatcherite variety has a track record. And it is inferior to a deeper, more dirigiste social democracy, by Thatcherism’s own putative standard of increased wealth and opportunity for the masses, as seen by its effect on the median voter.
The Harper Government™ does not lack opportunity to “provide their side of the story” with their ironclad control of the message.
But wait … that’s an investigative piece from the Toronto Star, which you hate. How about Global Television, via canada.com: Stephen Harper vs. The Press
Or perhaps all media has a “liberal bias”? Where have I heard that before?
The many links I posted earlier don’t lie. Disbelieve one, disbelieve two. You can’t disbelieve them all. Harper is a media control freak.
CBC is Canada’s national broadcaster, and if you look at the funding that they get compared to the national broadcasters of any other civilized country in the world*, it’s pathetically tiny. I’m not going to go chasing down the numbers right now but I’m sure you can Google as well as I, and I have a number of reports somewhere listing the numbers.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your earlier comments about other institutions. Privatize Canada Post? Maybe. Mail is no longer an essential public service and CUPW has been one of the most arrogant unions in national history. Privatize liquor sales in Ontario? Maybe; it’s a very complex issue and as always, the devil is in the details.
But you’re way, way over the top in lumping the CBC into the same category.
The CBC is much more than just television, but the reason they have to sell ads is precisely because of the limited funding. Yet they still manage world-class national news and documentaries, and CBC Radio is in my view second to none in the world despite a shoestring budget. You can listen to CBC Radio as you drive around the country, almost everywhere; if there isn’t a station, there’s a relay retransmitter. To me CBC Radio is Canada – a unifying and pervasive underpinning of our values.
The CBC is our national broadcaster – as close as we can come to an independent non-commercial national broadcaster that is free of commercial interference, especially in radio, but very much in television with national institutions like the National News and icons like Peter Mansbridge. The CBC is more than just a unifying agent of national values – like all public broadcasters, they serve an essential purpose in promoting an informed public and are an essential pillar of our democracy, just like public broadcasters in other civilized countries in the world. Yes, I know conservatives hate it. I’ve had these conversations with conservatives before. They argue that publicly funded broadcasters are no good because the government controls them, yet somehow the CBC has some horrible liberal bias despite a decade of rule by The Harper Government™! They argue that the CBC has some horrible liberal bias despite a complete inability to provide any substantive evidence to support it. The reality is that without a national public broadcaster, all we’d have is commercial media beholden to commercial interests, just like the US.
*The US is the only exception. The CPB and its children, NPR and PBS, are paupers that are even more pathetically underfunded and conservatives there want to shut it down entirely. US broadcasting is primarily commercial and caters to corporate interests and, no coincidence, so is their government.
Because, as I’ve already said several times, what the media chooses to call the government or its programs is entirely different from an order coming down from on high about what government employees must call it.
I don’t need to look, it’s all there. And I’m sure you honestly believe it’s a terrific government. I’m sure you also honestly believe the CBC is useless, biased, and should be privatized. Perhaps it should be turned into a version of either Fox News or the Fox network, and the CBC National News with Peter Mansbridge should be replaced by reality shows with Kim Kardashian.
No, I don’t. I don’t need one. I am a Canadian citizen. You told me I couldn’t vote because I wasn’t.
Because you claimed at a later date (well after I was back in the U.S.) that you’d invited me to meet. You had not done so. Exactly one person asked me to meet, and we did. It wasn’t you.
Yes. Obviously we should replace the CBC with reality TV, and perhaps even the Kardashians. That’s exactly what I’m proposing.
look, we all have different political views, and that’s great actually. Sometimes I get a little wound up over this and I apologize for insulting or crass comments made, but the reality is that no one can be right, and no one can be wrong.
At present I believe the country is pretty much split in thirds with respect to our three main parties.
The country won’t fall apart regardless of who wins the next election. My view is that the Conservatives have done a great job guiding Canada through the worst recession since the great depression.
I don’t recall this. Can you find the post in question?
I don’t recall this. Can you find the post in question? I recall saying something like “Jeez Frank, if I’d known you were in Ottawa I would have asked you to join me for a beer,”
I can’t find the other thread; it was one where I complained about my vote being dropped in the box while I was at the other end making sure I was registered. As I recall, you PMed me. Didn’t want to meet you after that, anyway.
But it isn’t “absolutely correct”. It is provably wrong.
What you said was that “It’s about Harper’s edict directing how the government must refer to itself in all official communications. It’s a partisan rebranding of the state itself.”
But that isn’t the case. There are tons of examples where the term “Government of Canada” is used. Including the heading of the news releases webpage itself, which reads:
[Emphasis added]
What appears to be the case is that when something originates from the government itself, it is labelled “government of canada”, and when something originates from a minister or the PM, it is labelled “Harper Government”.
This isn’t, to my mind, a big deal, and does not amount to a “rebranding of the state”.
That’s just the point - a big stink was made in the press about a situation that (either because they were warned off it by the stink, or alternatively, because the stink was inaccurate) never happened. It simply is not the case today, which anyone can see for themselves.
I’m no admirer of Day, but to me his quote means ‘I dunno about this issue, but if it proves to be a big deal, I’ll look into it’.
It is perfectly possible that it was all a nefarious plan that got derailed because the press found out about it, as you allege. It is also possible that it was a tempest in a teapot, faux outrage stirred up in the press over a plan that was never intended. What is certain is that it is not the case today that the Canadian government has been “rebranded”, as two second’s worth of looking into the matter demonstrates.
As for the Scientist you mentioned - he was reinstated with the clarification that the term was always intended for ministerial correspondence only, not for actual government workers. Again, one could interpret this as a government functionary in the Deputy Minister’s office going on a damaging frolic quickly repudiated by the actual government - or as a deeply laid nefarious Conservative plot foiled by the press - take your pick.
Seems to me that what happened was this: the “advisors” misinterpreted the scope of the directive; scientist called them out on it and called them idiots; they took offence and fired him; press storm ensues; Minister reinstates him (and no doubt some bad things happend to the “advisors”).
To my mind at least, the actual facts demostrate that, if one was already inclined to dislike the conservatives, their rapacious tendencies were only kept in check by the couragous press – or, if one was neutral or liked the conservatives, a bunch of tempests in teapots blown way out of proportion.
In any event, in both cases the “harm” - complete rebranding of Canada, firing of a scientist - came to nothing: the rebranding didn’t happen, and the scientist was reinstated with the responsible Minister confirming that the scientist was right all along!
Not, perhaps, the best incidents to use to demonstrate the unreasonableness and dictatorial behaviour of the government.
